Author: Jeremiah Penery
Date: 18:18:02 05/06/02
Go up one level in this thread
On May 06, 2002 at 18:56:00, Slater Wold wrote: >On May 06, 2002 at 17:29:01, Jeremiah Penery wrote: > >>On May 06, 2002 at 17:15:45, Slater Wold wrote: >> >>>On May 06, 2002 at 16:25:23, K. Burcham wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>I know there are several here that are waiting for the next >>>>AMD release of the 0.13-micron processor. We have all been wondering >>>>what this will overclock to. I also want to upgrade my single cpu pc. >>>> >>>>I found this benchtest dissappointing. This processor he used crashed at 2100 >>>>mhz. was stable at 2050 mhz. but this was with the vapochill unit. not sure how >>>>far it would overclock with air cooling. >>>> >>>>If we say the 1733 mhz amd is faster then the P4 2.4 gig running our chess >>>>software, then maybe a 2 gig amd thoroughbred will be comparable to a 3 gig >>>>P4 running our chess software, not sure, but looking forward to testing >>>>this .13-micron. >>>> >>>> http://www.overclockers.com.au/techstuff/a_amd_tbred/index.shtml >>>> >>>>kburcham >>> >>>A P4 2.2Ghz is faster by about 10% than an AMD 1.53Ghz CPU. >> >>On some applications, maybe most. But not on all applications. >> >>>WHICH MEANS: >>> >>>A P4 2.4Ghz is faster by about 10% than an AMD 1.73Ghz CPU. >> >>Clock speed doesn't scale linearly. You have to compare actual results to >>determine that kind of number, you can't extrapolate from lower speed grades. > >Did you bother to read below? Did anyone? I tested a 2.4Ghz this weekend, THIS >IS FACT. Period. I've tested them as well. I notice zero difference between an Intel 2.4GHz and an AthlonXP 1.6GHz on just about all applications. Of course, on some things, one or the other will be faster, but not usually a significant amount. >>>And remember, Intel announced the P4 2.53Ghz today. >>> >>>I had the oppurtunity to "play" on a P4 2.4Ghz machine this weekend, and I am >>>sorry to report, Pentium is winning. People just haven't realized it yet. >>> >>>These new Pentiums are NICE. For general "productivty" such as internet, >> >>How do you define "internet" in terms of productivity? Internet Explorer? It >>uses approximately 0% of my CPU time. No way any processor can make this go >>faster. > >I suggest you use perfmon and see how much it really uses. Especially sites >that are made from Flash. Can you give me a link to one that's processor-intensive? I tried to find some, but the most I could do was to peak at about 50% CPU usage - the average was maybe around 20-30% at most. >>> music, >> >>Ditto for music. Winamp playing here uses 2% or less of my CPU. Some other >>processor can't make it go faster. > >Encoding. 10 minute song on AMD XP2100+ == 10 minutes. 10 minute song on P4 >2.53Ghz == 2 minutes. Umm, let me do a test: WAV file: Mahler Symphony #2, movement 3, 10:20 length. Time to convert to MP3 -> 34 seconds. AthlonXP 1900+ (1600 MHz). Would you like some more numbers? >>>videos, these P4 are a LOT faster than my XP2100+. >> >>Again, the same. Playing any kind of video here takes at most 15% of the CPU >>time. A faster processor won't make this any more "productive". > >Do me a favor, print something while watching a video. Sure, no problem. I'll do it while running Crafty, watching a DIVX video, watching a DVD, and browsing the internet at the same time. No slowdowns at all. Sorry if you have trouble doing these things on an AMD machine, I don't. If you really don't believe any of my numbers, I can send you screenshots or something.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.